No one here was bashing you. But seemingly from your standpoint, it seems anyone who disagrees with you or has another point of view is bashing you. You're not the only one with many years of G-body experience up in here. We all don't know everything about what they did when building these cars. Even GM can't tell you half the time. Especially as far as where they used which type of paint. This could vary greatly and there's not a database anywhere that says they used this type of paint here and that type of paint there during which parts of which years. That's why we're here. To share and learn from each other. If I wanted to bash your ideas, I'd have just said you were incorrect and then run off.
Interestingly, during my search for the proof you desire, I found where you made the claim yourself several years back that your 86 442 has bc/cc in this post, so which is it?
i "think" that most 84 and back g's had laquer and then there was both single stage and base clear jobs on g bodies. my 86 442 had base clear on it and i am guessing most high line g bodies but there were also case line cars that had base/clear that i have seen. there is info out there on this...
gbodyforum.com
There was a long period of time, which spanned more than a decade, before GM swapped everything over from lacquer and enamel to bc/cc and that depended on the plant, and even sometimes in the same plant with multiple makes they would use different types of paint. GM was weird that way. My dad worked for Corvette and when they moved the plant to Bowling Green, KY from St. Louis, he said they started to use clear coats on all the Corvettes when they started up, where they did not in St. Louis. There are some reports that some late 85 F-bodies had clear coats (they started whole hog use on F-body in 1986), but I don't know much about that as I've never seen any evidence to say one way or another.
Based on what I do know about 86 Olds SPIDs, that was the year that seemingly showed the RPO color code in the RPO listing, but the WA numbers or any other color references at the bottom of the SPID weren't there in most instances. This may not be true on every 86 Olds, but for US built cars, that's pretty much what I've seen. Other makes did have that info. WTF? I have come to the conclusion that there were certain leeways (outside of mandatory info) given to each assembly plant as to what information was on the SPID labels and how it was presented.
I haven't came in contact with that many 86 cars, but I do recall a light blue metallic (I've always hated that color) 86 Cutlass the guy down the street had and the paint started to fade, check, and burn on it, so it could not have been base clear. Otherwise it would have frosted and peeled as it degraded. It would not surprise me if the 86 G-cars has some base clear and some lacquer, especially if they were made at different plants. I'm not a paint expert. And it doesn't make much difference to me, in actuality.
And I'll be the first to admit I'm not Regal-Knowledgeable. However, I did find evidence of lacquer being used on 86 GNs, which most of them probably were. But I know for certain my buddy's 86 GN he bought brand new off the lot had a base/clear on it. Otherwise it wouldn't have peeled like it did, which I saw with my own eyes. They initially claimed he wasn't washing it properly peeling the clearcoat. Dafuq? He pampered that car. It was a big deal at the time, although it was more about how GM was trying to be dlckholes about fixing it 8 months into his ownership.
The thing is, I don't know if they used lacquer just on early 86 GN's or when the paint went to base/clear or did they go the other way? Back then I didn't follow the G-bodies that much because they were "new cars", but I know the issues his particular car went through. Because of his issues, back then I thought lacquer was the cat's azz and I wouldn't want to paint my car base/clear. How times have changed. I still don't WANT to repaint my 85 in bc/cc, but I'm not likely going to have much choice. Can you still paint lacquer in Canada? Or even get it?
Even with all that, you haven't convinced me about the value of an 87 simply based on the type of paint. I don't think just having bc/cc means much as far as overall value. The quality of the existing paint job is what matters most IMO. Some people love the Euro noses which makes them likely a bit more popular and not as frequent as the quad headlight style, so I'd place that as a value adder perhaps. I personally like the quad headlight system just a bit better, but it's the overall body lines of a G47 Olds, 442, Salon, Supreme, Classic, base/clear paint, or not, that make them my favorite G-body. I've also seen 84 and 85 cars priced higher than 87 cars of what I would consider equal condition. It's going to vary a lot on location, condition, and many other factors.
But you stated that 87 Cutlasses were the only ones to get bc/cc and all I was trying to say is that the Ste. Therese-built 87 Cutlasses were, indeed, lacquer. I'm sure many GN's and the majority of the G-bodies got lacquer paint jobs as well. But the ones that are left get repainted in bc/cc so the number of bc/cc paint jobs is rising from the restorations. It's just when you start throwing out the terms like "only", sometimes there are other examples that actually exist. I did also find that they built Monte Carlos in Arlington in 87 as well and those were lacquer. Maybe those Monte nuts may know whether any of the Montes got a bc/cc? Or were all of them lacquer?
I also do not agree that the GN was a "high-end" car. That's just another opinion. To me, all of them were G-bodies, so inherently they weren't high-end. Fit and finish was fairly poor across the genre, generally speaking.
Here's a spid from a teal metallic 87 Salon V8 T-top made at Ste. Therese with lacquer paint for sale, 19K miles. And it's priced pretty sporty IMO. If it were bc/cc, I don't think it would affect the price, IMO. Nice car, but oof, that price tag.
View attachment 139771
Back to the regular scheduled programming.
